This is way too early for team rankings, but I'll take it. I'm also wondering what their basis was to update their player rankings AGAIN. WHat big events have happened? Also, anyone know what may have caused Butt's drop? Do you think they saw him drop a pass and decided he wasn't among the top 247 or something....

Well, they didn't rank Jaron Dukes until after he committed to Michigan, so...That made up the gap. Right now, it's going to be numbers which drive the rankings. Once teams start getting the numbers, it'll be based on quality. A&M was ahead because of their numbers. We caught up because of quality and numbers.

It's possble maybe that they don't see a large enough gap between 3* and 4* or that extra 3* player really makes a difference but that would be ridiculous. I mean, we have double the number of 4* and a quarter the number of 3* players. I know this means little now and will mean nothing after a week or two, but one more average player should not be making that much of a score difference.

It's a point thing. Each recruit has a point value based on their ranking. They add the points up and get a total. Michigan has pulled ahead on volume plus quantity. Texas A&M has 13 recruits already, so even though they aren't quite as highly rated, they were ahead.

For what it's worth, Alabama already has a five star, seven four stars, and a three star. That's probably the best class by average star ranking that has more than two commitments.

Agreed. If you have one recruit (ie. oregon/usc) then the points equal the rating of the player (98/97 respectively). Michigan has 12 recruits totalling 1107 points, yet their total points on the list is 712.4.

We all must keep in mind these are verbal committments, anything can happen in a year. Also, Urban and Ohio will recruit these kids harder, especially because they are in-state and committed to their biggest rivals.

Although I don't know Brady Hoke personally, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of his personality and how he interacts with parents, recruits, players, coaches, etc. Words that come to mind: Honest. Straight Shooter. Tradition. Michigan. Hard Work. The Team. Family. Academics. History. Privilege. It's not about other schools with him, it's only about Michigan. That's where I think he is different from Urban Meyer. I feel like he may be all about his past successes, the NFL, and from recent news - comparing OSU's committment to education to ours. A kid and his family who commit to Michigan and Hoke are not likely to be swayed by someone like Urban Meyer.

The thing that stood out to me this past signing day was that every single verbal commitment faxed in their written commitment. I agree with everything else you say. And I'm guessing you agree that those follow-through's are significant. Fergodssakes.

Urban couldn;t take any kida last year, and I'm sure Hoke knows to keep up the contact in order to keep Urban out of the picture this year. If we keep this up AND hold steady, we are looking great for a top 5 or 10 recruiting class!

...but if we can keep up this pace, a similar distribution of star rankings and keep these kids in the Michigan fold until they are officially signed on, then there isn't any reason that we're not in the top 5 for recruiting classes at this point next year.

It's already an elite class and these are just verbals. I hope they stay on, and even at this point, I would still dare say...

Nice to see we have the number one recruiting class right now but Bama will probably end up being the number 1 class. They are going to get the top 2 guys and there class is just going to be stacked. We should finish in the top 5 though which will be really nice and def. way better then the Rich Rod years.

Great to be in this position...I like that we do alot of work landing recruits early. Having 10 4-stars is incredible--only two other schools even have 10 or more recruits total at this (early) stage.

So a question: In the past I've heard that more attention is given later in the recruitment cycle to recruits who haven't committed yet, and they are sometimes seen as stronger simply because people are noticing them more. As a result, the earlier commits are a bit under the radar and, as ratings get adjusted closer to NSD, underrated. Does this seem right? If so, any thoughts that our 2012 class might be even stronger than what we're credited because the early commits are under-valued?

It's almost certainly true that late-signees get more scrutiny than early-signees. So it's probably true that most scouting services tend to overvalue them. And sometimes a countervailing effect comes into play, one in which a school that dominates the rankings is semi-automatically credited with finding an early-signing needle in the haystack, and that bumps up the esteem for the recruit.

But if a recruting service plans to be in it for the long haul, they want to get it right. So maybe it evens out.

How can I take this ranking seriously? They have North Carolina above OSU. OSU has a 5-star and 3 4-stars. UNC has a 4-star and 3 3-stars. Also, as someone mentioned, anyone would have taken our class over A&M's before, during, and after Dukes.

but just like the 2014 basketball class we have 12 commits some major schools only have 2 or less. We will at this pace be top 10 without a doubt but holding on tot he #1 class when only getting 20-22 kids is gonna be very hard IMO. But the being said I love this class and hope it keeps on rolling the way it is so far.

But they really wanted to be Blue, not just comitted. They are our spokesmen, our face to potential recruits, and respectful to the Michigan institution. No hats, no press conferences. These guys may be the foundation of the program for years.